niklas/ros2_tracing
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Update tracetools' quality level to 1

Browse source 
Backport of e2664fcae9977af37fcb6da79f29699f44fb6a3d from !213

Signed-off-by: Christophe Bedard <bedard.christophe@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
Christophe Bedard 2020-10-25 16:23:53 -04:00
parent 03fa84df8b
commit dea844e1d3
2 changed files with 10 additions and 6 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
README.md
View file

@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ Package containing a `ros2cli` extension to enable tracing.
Library to support instrumenting ROS packages, including core packages. Library to support instrumenting ROS packages, including core packages.
This package claims to be in the **Quality Level 2** category, see the [Quality Declaration](./tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md) for more details. This package claims to be in the **Quality Level 1** category, see the [Quality Declaration](./tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md) for more details.
See the [API documentation](https://ros-tracing.gitlab.io/ros2_tracing-api/). See the [API documentation](https://ros-tracing.gitlab.io/ros2_tracing-api/).

14
tracetools/QUALITY_DECLARATION.md
View file

@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ This document is a declaration of software quality for the `tracetools` package,
# `tracetools` Quality Declaration # `tracetools` Quality Declaration
The package `tracetools` claims to be in the **Quality Level 2** category. The `tracetools` package claims to be in the **Quality Level 1** category.
Below are the rationales, notes, and caveats for this claim, organized by each requirement listed in the [Package Requirements for Quality Level 1 in REP-2004](https://www.ros.org/reps/rep-2004.html). Below are the rationales, notes, and caveats for this claim, organized by each requirement listed in the [Package Requirements for Quality Level 1 in REP-2004](https://www.ros.org/reps/rep-2004.html).
@ -106,15 +106,19 @@ The tests aim to cover both typical usage and corner cases, but are quantified b
This includes: This includes:
- tracking and reporting line coverage statistics - tracking and reporting line coverage statistics
- achieving and maintaining a good branch line coverage (95%)
- no lines are manually skipped in coverage calculations - no lines are manually skipped in coverage calculations
Changes are required to make a best effort to keep or increase coverage before being accepted, but decreases are allowed if properly justified and accepted by reviewers. Changes are required to make a best effort to keep or increase coverage before being accepted, but decreases are allowed if properly justified and accepted by reviewers.
Current coverage statistics can be viewed [on codecov.io](https://codecov.io/gl/ros-tracing/ros2_tracing) or in the [results of the latest `coverage` CI job](https://gitlab.com/ros-tracing/ros2_tracing/pipelines/latest). Current coverage statistics can be viewed [on codecov.io](https://codecov.io/gl/ros-tracing/ros2_tracing) or in the [results of the latest `coverage` CI job](https://gitlab.com/ros-tracing/ros2_tracing/pipelines/latest).
`tracetools` might not reach the 95% goal because it uses `#ifdef` in case LTTng is not installed, but, when using and enabling LTTng, the line coverage is above 95%.
### Performance [4.iv] ### Performance [4.iv]
`tracetools` does not currently have any performance tests. `tracetools` does not currently have any performance tests.
However, since it is simply an interface and does not contain much logic (or actual code), it does not arguably require performance tests.
### Linters and Static Analysis [4.v] ### Linters and Static Analysis [4.v]
@ -188,9 +192,9 @@ The table below compares the requirements in REP-2004 with the current state of
|4.i| Feature items tests | ✓ | |4.i| Feature items tests | ✓ |
|4.ii| Public API tests | ✓ | |4.ii| Public API tests | ✓ |
|4.iii.a| Using coverage | ✓ | |4.iii.a| Using coverage | ✓ |
|4.iii.b| Coverage policy | | |4.iii.b| Coverage policy | ✓ |
|4.iv.a| Performance tests | | |4.iv.a| Performance tests | x |
|4.iv.b| Performance tests policy | | |4.iv.b| Performance tests policy | ✓ |
|4.v.a| Code style enforcement (linters) | ✓ | |4.v.a| Code style enforcement (linters) | ✓ |
|4.v.b| Use of static analysis tools | ✓ | |4.v.b| Use of static analysis tools | ✓ |
|5| **Dependencies** || |5| **Dependencies** ||
@ -204,4 +208,4 @@ The table below compares the requirements in REP-2004 with the current state of
\* : going forward \* : going forward
Comparing this table to the [Quality Level Comparison Chart of REP-2004](https://www.ros.org/reps/rep-2004.html#quality-level-comparison-chart) led us to conclude that this package qualifies for Quality Level 2. Comparing this table to the [Quality Level Comparison Chart of REP-2004](https://www.ros.org/reps/rep-2004.html#quality-level-comparison-chart) led us to conclude that this package qualifies for Quality Level 1.